Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation

[babsbunny]

Ex-FBI Agent: Why I Support a New 9/11 Investigation

http://rawstory.com/blog/2009/07/ex-fbi-agent-why-i-support-a-new-911-investigation/

By Coleen Rowley

In the absence of my being there in New York City to stand with the 9/11 families, first responders and survivors, I offer the following statement in support of your goal of a new investigation into the attacks of September 11th and the NYC CAN campaign to place it on the ballot for November.

coleenrowleyAt the time of 9-11, I had been an FBI agent for over 20 years. My main responsibilities by then were teaching criminal procedure to FBI agents and other law enforcement officers, mostly about 4th Amendment search and seizure, 5th and 6th Amendment law of interrogation, right to attorney and constitutional protection of rights to “free speech”, due process, habeas corpus, and against cruel and unusual punishment. A week before 9-11, I and the rest of the FBI’s ethics instructors were mandated (as a result of an earlier public FBI scandal) to give a one hour PowerPoint presentation, a form of remedial training on “law enforcement ethics” which I accomplished in a fairly perfunctory way, just reading the slides.

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

1. From Coleen

I couldn’t forget two of the slides in that Law Enforcement ethics curriculum: “DO NOT: Puff, Shade, Tailor, Firm up, Stretch, Massage, or Tidy up statements of fact.” And “Misplaced Loyalties: As employees of the FBI, we must be aware that our highest loyalty is to the United States Constitution.


thank you for the post babsbunny, and thank you Ms. Rowley.

[babsbunny]

2. I love it when I post something good!

And when someone says thank you! :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast: :toast:

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

5. .

:yourock:

[Canuckistanian]

3. K&R

Thanks, Colleen :patriot:

[Junkdrawer]

4. Coleen Rowley was why I came to DU in 2002...

How this place has changed...

[Octafish]

6. TIME Person of the Year

One of the persons most deserving of the honor. I wish she'd run, again, for office.

Here's my take on what Ms. Rowley wanted the Washington office to investigate:

Know your BFEE: Moussaoui Must Die for Bush and 'His' Government

Know your BFEE: The Stench of Moussaoui Permeates the Octopus

[williesgirl]

7. k&r - thanks

[wroberts189]

8. So NY has a referendum on a new investigation...

snip..


Therefore, I fully support the 9/11 families, first responders, survivors and over 60,000 other New Yorkers who have endorsed a new 9/11 investigation in New York City as advanced by ballot referendum this coming November election.


knr

[HCE SuiGeneris]

9. 9/11, and the events prior to its occurrence,

need to be investigated. Period. The previous sham that was labeled an investigation was nothing more than a cover-up. The lack of a real investigation is THE single greatest factor that enabled the abuses we have endured post 9/11.

[dysfunctional press]

10. ibtm...ttd.

(in before the move...to the dungeon)

[bobthedrummer]

11. We are looking at LIHOP again...

"More Evidence of Pre-9/11 Inside Trading: Follow the Money? God Forbid" by Jim Hogue (1-28-08 Baltimore Chronicle)

"Why was the cashing out of billions of dollars just before 9/11 never investigated?"

http://baltimorechronicle.com/2008/012908Hogue.shtml

[Raster]

15. WE *NEVER* stopped looking at LIHOP. We've been told to stop looking.

We've been shamed and gamed into stopping looking. Friends, take a walk into DU's own 9/11 "Dungeon," so named, because threads are quaranteened there. You cannot recommend from the Dungeon. In addition, a small but EXTREMELY VOCAL and dedicated group have made it the focus of their entire DU experience to deride any discussion of 9/11, to defame and antagonize anyone trying to competently discuss aspects of 9/11, and to, in effect, shut down as much discussion as possible. I have stated that's what they get paid to do. I am not joking.

The barrage of false information around 9/11 is part of a classic disinformation ploy, all designed to shut down honest discussion.

[bobthedrummer]

41. This place, like the entire Internet is a battleground of information warfare-we all know that now.

I've been stating that since I got here in 2001.

[annm4peace]

12. If you want to listen to a great speaker, see Coleen Rowley

she often does speaking engagements. I don't know how much she charges but many universities can cover the costs. I don't think she would charge much.. If you charge at the door I'm sure it would end up being a good fundraiser.

[OneBlueSky]

13. since when does New York have a referendum option? . . .

I assume what these folks are trying to do is influence their legislators to get something on the ballot, since to my knowledge New York law doesn't provide for getting something on the ballot via public referendum . . . please correct me if I'm wrong about that . . .

[Torn_Scorned_Ignored]

17. That is not what it is

you can check out www.nyccan.com for the correct information and make a donation if you so choose.

[SpiralHawk]

14. "i did not have MIHOP with that incident, 9/11. Smirk." - xCommander AWOL (R)

[jotsy]

16. The surfacing of truth is bound to be ugly, but to see it for what it is, necessary

Given all the other crazy ass crap that is starting to come to light, nothing would surprise me. Don't laugh but I've often wondered about that fourth plane,the one that went down in Pennsylvania. Just how unitary an executive branch would we have had if congress hadn't perhaps escaped a murder attempt? A nasty dangerous question, I know.

[Grinchie]

18. If Obama and the Chickenhawks can't come clean with Torture Photos...

What makes anyone think that exposing a large, well funded criminal organization within the heart of Government is ever going to see the light of day.

Everyone knows it must be done, but they would rather believe in the irrational idea that the Twin Towers falling at free fall speed could actually occur outside of Bizarro world.

9/11 is a sham, and to hear Bill Clinton during the primaries Ridicule a protester with "How Dare You", so we know the DLC is in on it.

[On the Road]

19. Journal of Engineering Mechanics Must be Living in a Bizarro World

Analysis of video footage capturing the initial collapse and analysis of seismic data from Palisades, New York, shows that the first fragments of the outer walls of the collapsed North Tower struck the ground 9 seconds after the collapse started, and parts of the South Tower after 11 seconds. The lower portions of both buildings' cores (60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) remained standing for up to 25 seconds after the start of the initial collapse before they too collapsed. These times are approximate because dust obscured the view.^{12, 57}

An early analysis explains that the kinetic energy of the upper portion of the building falling onto the story below exceeded by an order of magnitude the amount of energy that the lower story could absorb,²⁸ crushing it and adding to the kinetic energy. This scenario repeated with each successive story, crushing the entire tower at near-free-fall speed.⁵⁸

28. Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Yong Zhou (January 2002). "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?—Simple Analysis". Journal of Engineering Mechanics 128 (1): 2–6. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2002)128:1(2)

12. NIST & The World Trade Center. National Institute of Standards and Technology. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm. Retrieved on 2006-09-17.

58. Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Mathieu Verdure (March 2007). "Mechanics of Progressive Collapse: Learning from World Trade Center and Building Demolitions" (PDF). J. Engrg. Mech. 133 (3): pp. 308–319. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9399(2007)133:3(308)

57. Bažant, Zdeněk P.; Jia-Liang Le, Frank R. Greening and David B. Benson (2007-05-27) (PDF). Collapse of World Trade Center Towers: What Did and Did Not Cause It?. 2007-06-22. Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60208, USA. Structural Engineering Report No. 07-05/C605c (page 12). http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/00%20WTC%20Collapse%20-%20What%20did%20%26%20Did%20Not%20Cause%20It%20-%20Revised%206-22-07.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#cite_note-BazantWhy-57

Now: for those who believe in controlled demolition: If the buildings were taken down by explosives, the core would have been destroyed first, not remained standing until after the rest of the building had fallen.

[Lancer]

20. Yup.

Physics. It's not just a good idea; it's the law.

[Grinchie]

21. Oh, well that explains it then.

Now, on to WTC 7 and the Pentagon. I'm sure you have a nice tidy explanation for those anomalies. I'm all ears.

[On the Road]

29. So I Assume You're Conceding the Argument

on the first two WTC buildings. Which would be wise, since if someone HAD been able to surreptitously plant explosives up the central core, it would not have remained standing after the initial collapse.

Or perhaps not -- the NIST explanation is well known and exhaustively studied. The other explanations are vague, conflicting, and are all over the place.

And if you're depending on sarcasm as a persuasive tool, keep on using it because it's your best
argument.

[Grinchie]

30. Actually, I concede nothing. I terminated the illogic response with more anomalies

And you simply could not bear the though of allowing that to occur.

I'll grant you your belief of the 2 towers magically collapsing straight into their own footprint, less than an hour after impact..., which hase never occurred anywhere, in the history of steel framed skyscrapers, is normal, and that we should trust skyscrapers at all after that event, it is beyond me. You would think that rents in skyscrapers would plummet, considering thethat WTC 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the hit from an airliner.

I never had a second thought about the collapse of WTC1 and 2, and bought the story hook line and sinker, until I saw the WTC 7 collapse. You see, if it was just the WTC 1 and 2, one could imagine that it could be possible, however, WTC 7 kinda spoiled the mtyh.

I can see why you would want to concede when I brought up WTC 7 and the Pentagon though. Those two events are pretty hard to defend without blowing your motive out of the shadows.

I would recomend you moving on from this, because I've done my homework, unlike 95% of americans on this matter. If you want to get into a fact dump, I'm ready willing and able.

[On the Road]

33. Since You Have No Alternate Theory to Share

and insufficient knowledge to discuss the NIST explanation, that might be a good idea.

[Grinchie]

35. Explain the high amounts of Barium and Sulfur in the Iron Spherules

I don't even think that NIST discussed the byproduct of Thermate in their report, did they?

I granted you your belief for the Twin Towers. If you are intent on fighting that battle, go ahead, but your inability to deviate from that one facet of 9/11, and ignore WTC 7 or the Pentagon, shows that you have to narrow your argument to the only points that could possibly validate the first, world recorded event of two steel skyscrapers collapsing into their own footprint at freefall speed. Even if it fell straight down, there is no reason to believe that the core would succumb to the outer shell peeling away from it, unless it has been purposefully weakened.

[On the Road]

40. I Have No Interst in Rehasing Every Argument

Since you have referred to thermite byproducts and near-free-falling, and in the absence of any other analyses, I am assuming that you subscribe to the hypothesis that explosives were somehow loaded into the core of WTC 1 and 2 and detonated remotely to bring the buildings down. That would seem to be contradicted by the fact that rather disintegrating, the core remained standing briefly after the initial collapse.

WTC 7 and the Pentagon both have legitimate explanations. If you believe a missle hit the Pentagon, you have to deal with the fact that light poles which were at least 75 feet apart were brought down by the approaching aircraft, the passengers calls, the black box, znd the DNA identification of individual passengers from Flight 77.

As far as not having an explanation for WTC 7, here is an article providing an engineering explanation. There are others:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

There's a lot of materical which is not that hard to find. If you are going to promote one of the nebulous conspiracy theories, you should state a specific hypothesis and argue for it based on the known facts and interpretations, rather than pretending no one has ever dealt with the issues.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

22. Wait...you're suggesting the DLC is partially responsible for 9/11?

[Grinchie]

31. Read what I wrote again, and next time, don't try to spin it.

[Politicalboi]

36. Bill Clinton was covering his own ass

Oklahoma has a lot of loose ends too. Like other explosive devices in the building, as reported that morning on the news with video, and the removal of one for sure. Yeah McVeigh had the clout to get into a federal building and set it all up. :sarcasm: And 9/11 where "terrorist" plan for months but don't fly out of NY, where they could at that time see the towers from the runway. I guess it's easier to out smart NORAD for hundereds of miles, (Little did we know) rather than just turn the plane around 100 miles out. Who knew? :shrug:

[defendandprotect]

23. Thank you Coleen Rowley--!!!

After 9-11, with the knowledge I had of the bitter internal dispute inside the FBI that was being hushed up

but had kept some of our better agents from possibly uncovering more of the 9-11 plot before it happened ...

Coleen Rowley was also the whistleblower on the '93 attack . . .

which seems to have been practice?

[defendandprotect]

24. Imagine our corporate press is rushing to cover this one -- !!!

[defendandprotect]

25. Where has this article been for two days? Too late to recommend!!

[malaise]

28. Same here

Kick

[bobthedrummer]

26. .

[defendandprotect]

27. kick

[noise]

32. Records relating the the attacks could be declassified in 24 hours

1) CIA IG report with rebuttals by named CIA officials. Only the executive summary was released in 8/07.

2) 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry report which Sen. Graham says detail Saudi support for al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar.

3) 9/11 Commission interviews with key intel agents. Many of these interviews are pending classification review even though they were turned over to NARA in '04. For example, the chief of Alec Station (Rich B.) from mid-'99 until 12/01 (at which time he was promoted to chief of the reopened Kabul station). For 20 months the CIA withheld the fact that two al Qaeda operatives were in the US. This official ran the unit that withheld this information despite the fact that he was the briefer during the 7/10/01 urgent briefing for Rice. Bear in mind at the time of the 7/10/01 briefing the CIA knew al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar were linked to plotters of the USS Cole attack. It doesn't get more absurd than this. Ok it does. This official retained classified status after 9/11 and for all we know still does. Think about all the absurd celebrity coverage over the years and yet the MSM has no curiosity about this official or his counterpart at the FBI UBLU. His counterpart (Rod Middleton) was also involved in the al-Hazmi/al-Mihdhar withholding. In late August of '01 (after 20 months of inexplicable withholding) the CIA told the FBI about al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar. The catch is that the UBLU (intel side) got the information and didn't share it with Cole (criminal side) investigators. UBLU officials blamed the Gorelick wall but when one goes through the available records this argument turns out to be completely without merit. So instead of having a high priority criminal search we are told a rookie intel agent searched a few databases.

I repeat, many questions could be answered in 24 hours. No new investigation needed. When do we see either of these officials interviewed by the media?

[bobthedrummer]

34. kick

:patriot:

[defendandprotect]

37. kick -- Is there a new thread freezer this was kept in for two days?

[bobthedrummer]

38. Just think, Henry Kissinger was the first choice to head the 9/11 investigation, kick

[bobthedrummer]

39. .